Marvin Ammori Quotes

AT&T will not block access to the public Internet or degrade service, period.

Net neutrality is the principle forbidding huge telecommunications companies from treating users, websites, or apps differently - say, by letting some work better than others over their pipes.

A rule against paid fast lanes would encourage additional capacity; a rule permitting paid fast lanes would simply encourage cable companies to create congested slow lanes on the Internet so they could make money by selling fast lanes to big companies.

I support greater access to the Internet, but going back to Obama-era regulations is not the answer.

Net Neutrality originally referred to management of the 'last mile' of the network over which data flows into a person's home, but the debate has grown beyond that in recent years.

If I see anything remotely like a telcom-run faster internet that you have to pay more to get preferential traffic on, I'm out folks. I've seen this story before, I ran an ISP back in the late 90s.

Any 'network neutrality' rule should be designed to forbid phone or cable companies from controlling the Internet.

The nature of the Internet and the importance of net neutrality is that innovation can come from everyone.

Net neutrality isn't a government takeover of the Internet, as many of my Republican colleagues have alleged.

I love it when these Internet dudes say to me, 'Hey man, we just want to be 'content neutral.'

The CEO of AT&T told an interviewer back in 2005 that he wanted to introduce a new business model to the Internet: charging companies like Google and Yahoo! to reliably reach Internet users on the AT&T network.

I think it was a major mistake to revisit Title II.

You do not need the government to protect open internet; the marketplace was doing it and will continue to do it. All you are doing is adding a burden that does not need to be there.

The Open Internet principles were not legal rules adopted by the FCC; they were effectively a press statement posted on the FCC website.

Notably, the FCC fact sheet regarding the net neutrality plan does not mention any accommodations for small providers.

If we didn't have Net neutrality, carriers could do things like penalize companies that use a lot of bandwidth or create high-speed lanes and charge Internet companies extra fees to send their stuff over them. That would give an advantage to big companies and make life harder for startups.

I think there wouldn't be a Net neutrality debate in this country if we really had a competitive environment for access.

The Internet belongs to all of us, not big telecom.

I think net neutrality needs to be explored in a broader sense.

Internet service providers should not be permitted to block, throttle and unfairly favor certain content, applications, services or devices.

The significant regulatory impact of reclassifying broadband services is not something that should be taken lightly and should not be done without additional direction from Congress.

The FCC should facilitate, rather than frustrate, innovation.

In the Internet world, both ends essentially pay for access to the Internet system, and so the providers of access get compensated by the users at each end. My big concern is that suddenly access providers want to step in the middle and create a toll road to limit customers' ability to get access to services of their choice even though they have paid for access to the network in the first place.

We need to make Net Neutrality the law. We need to elect a Congress that will make it a priority to keep this important principal intact - and insure equal and open access to the Internet for all.

It's an incredibly important thing to make sure we preserve net neutrality.